Perkins, Lyle John v Cuthill, William John & Ors [1981] FCA 92

Perkins, Lyle John v Cuthill, William John & Ors [1981] FCA 92

The Disciplinary Appeal Board's decision was unlawful because it mischaracterized the offences, failed to have regard to relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant matters, failed to give adequate reasons, and denied the applicant natural justice by deciding the matter on a basis not put or notified to the applicant. Accordingly, the decision is void and must be quashed, with consequential orders including a rehearing by a differently constituted Board.

Parties
Applicant: Lyle John Perkins; First Respondent: William John Cuthill; Second Respondent: Kenneth Vincent Loughnan; Third Respondent: Desmond John Lovelock; Fourth Respondent: Australian Telecommunications Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 1981
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; decision quashed; orders made for rehearing and payment adjustments
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Natural Justice, Statutory Powers, Employment Law, Disciplinary Proceedings
Administrative Law Judicial Review Natural Justice Statutory Powers Employment Law Disciplinary Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lyle John Perkins

Applicant

William John Cuthill

First Respondent

Kenneth Vincent Loughnan

Second Respondent

Desmond John Lovelock

Third Respondent

Australian Telecommunications Commission

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disciplinary Appeal Board failed to observe the rules of natural justice
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to consider relevant considerations and took account of irrelevant considerations under s.61(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1975
  3. 3 Interpretation of 'conviction' under Queensland Offenders Probation and Parole Act 1959 s.19 for purposes of s.61(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1975

Ratio Decidendi

The Disciplinary Appeal Board's decision was unlawful because it mischaracterized the offences, failed to have regard to relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant matters, failed to give adequate reasons, and denied the applicant natural justice by deciding the matter on a basis not put or notified to the applicant. Accordingly, the decision is void and must be quashed, with consequential orders including a rehearing by a differently constituted Board.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; decision quashed; orders made for rehearing and payment adjustments

Orders

  • The decision of the Disciplinary Appeal Board, given on 12 March 1981, is quashed with effect from and including the date on which it was made.
  • The Australian Telecommunications Commission is directed to arrange for a disciplinary appeal board under s.63 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, constituted by a different chairman and different members from the first, second and third respondents, to hear and determine the applicant's appeal from the decision by...